I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
Four candidates for city council in Albuquerque qualified for public financing according to the city’s website. The deadline for qualifying for public financing was May 31.
A report released Wednesday by the Center for Governmental Studies said the 2007 and 2009 publicly funded municipal campaigns in Albuquerque were a success, resulting in less money spent in the election and more focus on the issues.
If defeated District 5 City Councilor Michael Cadigan had taken public financing, he could have had a lot more money to spend on the race this year. About twice as much.
Reports filed Friday with Albuquerque’s city clerk show that incumbent Mayor Marty Chavez has spent the least amount of public campaign funds among the city’s three mayoral candidates. It’s unclear, however, how the campaign is, or should be, accounting for the value of materials it has been using since before the new financing system began.
A review of the contribution books submitted by Mayor Martin Chavez’s re-election campaign to qualify for public financing shows that 52 percent of the books were filled by city employees, and city workers made up 42 percent of the mayor’s volunteer base.
As the dust settles on the first-ever run to qualify for public financing in an Albuquerque mayoral campaign, one question on a lot of minds is whether the new system rewards organizational backing — and “incumbency advantage” — over voter support.
